By Matt Underwood Democratic-led states are inadvertently sharing drivers’ data with ICE, officials say, and that’s a problem we need to unpack. The core issue, it seems, is that state agencies, the ones entrusted with our precious personal information, are often better at gathering it than they are at keeping it safe. It’s like they’re good at building the house, but forget to install a proper lock on the front door. We’re talking about driver’s license data here, the kind of info that can reveal a lot about a person: their address, their identity, and potentially, their immigration status.
It’s tempting to think this is a simple, partisan issue, but the reality is likely much more complex. The word “inadvertently” is key. While some might claim this is a deliberate strategy, the truth might be less sinister and more about systemic issues. Think about it: our data is constantly in demand. Everyone from banks to private companies wants a piece of it, and if it’s not properly secured, it’s vulnerable. It’s not necessarily a malicious plot; it could just be a case of poor infrastructure and inadequate security measures. The argument that Republican-led states are somehow better at safeguarding this information doesn’t necessarily hold water, with many pointing out the potential for data monetization across the political spectrum.
The details are concerning. Apparently, financial institutions like CHASE and Wells Fargo have access to DMV records, ostensibly to verify identities. Chase, for example, might even use your driver’s license number as an account identifier, which isn’t exactly a recipe for airtight security. There’s also the disconcerting experience of suddenly receiving notifications about activity at your address, like the registration of a new car, completely out of the blue. This kind of breach of privacy is unsettling and makes you question how much of your personal information is floating around.
The problem, ultimately, is a failure to prioritize data security. We see it everywhere. We spend fortunes building new technology and infrastructure, but often neglect the ongoing maintenance and security that’s vital to protect it. It’s the same old story: innovation over security. The technological mindset in the US, generally, seems to focus on building new things and deploying them quickly, with the security details coming later, if ever.
The data breaches that have happened over the years should be a wake-up call. If companies that hold vast amounts of personal information can get breached so easily, and still manage to continue operating and harvesting data, it’s hard to have any faith in the system. The reality is, not enough people care enough to demand change. As a society, we should demand better.
The question of whether this is primarily a problem in Democratic-led states is worth considering. Some states, like New York, have taken steps to block ICE access to data. Republican-led states, on the other hand, don’t always issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, which could explain the perception of the problem being more prevalent in Democratic states. However, the use of third-party contractors that may be shared across state lines could lead to a less partisan explanation for the issue.
The recent court case involving Flock surveillance data highlights the challenges in this area. A town argued that images collected by Flock cameras were not subject to public records requests because they were “owned” by the private company, not the city. The judge disagreed, but the town’s response was telling: they simply deactivated the cameras. It illustrates the hard choice between security and freedom that we must make, and the uncomfortable truth that most people may not understand the implications or care.
It’s about the security and the responsibility that comes with power. The reality of data security is different than the requirements of a driving license. The security issue comes from a third party contractor overlapping local and state databases which allows federal agents to search the state and local databases.
There is a valid concern about the potential for abuse when immigration data is used to query state and local databases. A federal query could lead to the unintended targeting of individuals with similar names and dates of birth, leading to detention and investigation. The solution is nuanced, and requires constant vigilance.